MLB National League Wild Card race - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

I think your facts are wrong.  Teams within a division play the same interleague teams (all of the AL east played NL east this year), with the exception of the rival series.  And I think they play other teams in their league the same, or at least very close.  The lack of balance effects the comparison between teams of different divisions more so than teams within the same division. You play your division rivals twice as often as other teams in your league.  The worst team in the AL east is 2 games under .500.  So the Orioles play the same teams as the yankees, but have a much harder schedule than the white sox who get to play against three teams under .500.  That calls into question whether the White Sox have really outplayed the O's, but its unquestionable that the Yankees have outplayed the O's.

 

So after 162 games, the yanks and O's have played almost the exact same schedule, and whoever wins the divison has proven the better team.

Yes, his facts were wrong and yours are correct.  (But I agree with his argument)  For all intents and purposes, teams within the same division play as similar a schedule as can be hoped for.  (The divisions aren't equal - NL Central has 6 and AL West has 4 - so there are always minor variations)

But the bold part above is precisely why the wild card works and why I disagree with your earlier post (#31 - wild cards don't deserve to be there).  The argument can easily be made that the O's "deserve" to be there just as much as the White Sox, and the wild card gives them that chance.  It wasn't that long ago that the Padres (my Padres, so I ain't complaining!) won the NL West with an 82-80 record.  it would be hard to argue that they "deserved" to be there more than the Braves (or whoever ended up winning the wild card that year) who certainly had a much better record.

And now the wild card is kind of the best of both worlds, because it gets you in, but you are "punished" and relegated to a crap-shoot one game playoff, rather than being put on equal footing with the division winners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Yes, his facts were wrong and yours are correct.  (But I agree with his argument)  For all intents and purposes, teams within the same division play as similar a schedule as can be hoped for.  (The divisions aren't equal - NL Central has 6 and AL West has 4 - so there are always minor variations)

 

But the bold part above is precisely why the wild card works and why I disagree with your earlier post (#31 - wild cards don't deserve to be there).  The argument can easily be made that the O's "deserve" to be there just as much as the White Sox, and the wild card gives them that chance.  It wasn't that long ago that the Padres (my Padres, so I ain't complaining!) won the NL West with an 82-80 record.  it would be hard to argue that they "deserved" to be there more than the Braves (or whoever ended up winning the wild card that year) who certainly had a much better record.

 

And now the wild card is kind of the best of both worlds, because it gets you in, but you are "punished" and relegated to a crap-shoot one game playoff, rather than being put on equal footing with the division winners.

Yeah, I see your point.  You want the best three/four/five teams in the playoffs.  That's totally reasonable.  I just think the playoffs should be a tournament of division winners.   

I do agree that the 2nd wild card is a HUGE improvement.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

Yeah, I see your point.  You want the best three/four/five teams in the playoffs.  That's totally reasonable.  I just think the playoffs should be a tournament of division winners.   

 

I do agree that the 2nd wild card is a HUGE improvement.  

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.  I've always thought that a disproportionate amount of wild cards do better in the playoffs because of the fact that they have to stay sharp and focused to the last day and they ride that momentum to the end.  Some division winners get the luxury of resting starters and twaeking their rotation, but I wonder if that ends up being to their detriment.

Just curious ... how would you propose they change the divisions/playoffs if you were the baseball czar?  Since currently there are 3 divisions, something else would have to change to keep out wild cards.  Go to four divisions per league?  Go back to 2 divisions?  Remember when the Atlanta Braves were in the NL West?  Ha!  (I think the Falcons were in the NFC West too)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.  I've always thought that a disproportionate amount of wild cards do better in the playoffs because of the fact that they have to stay sharp and focused to the last day and they ride that momentum to the end.  Some division winners get the luxury of resting starters and twaeking their rotation, but I wonder if that ends up being to their detriment.

 

Just curious ... how would you propose they change the divisions/playoffs if you were the baseball czar?  Since currently there are 3 divisions, something else would have to change to keep out wild cards.  Go to four divisions per league?  Go back to 2 divisions?  Remember when the Atlanta Braves were in the NL West?  Ha!  (I think the Falcons were in the NFC West too)

If I'm the czar do I want to maximize revenue?  Then I'd follow hockey and let em all in!

I'd probably get rid of the Marlins and Astros and go with 4 7 team divisions.  But we're talking ideals, not practicalities.  With the changes this year, I dont don't mind the WC so much.  I'd also make it more regional, dividing it into East and West, then North and South.  But now we're nitpicking.

I'd also get rid of the designated hitter ;) 

Actually, wouldn't the team with the better record head-to-head prove to be a better team? If you can beat a team across the country better than I can, but I can beat you more than you can beat me, I'd argue that I'm better than you. 

This assumes all conferences are created equal. You didn't visit my assertion that the #2 team in the SEC with a #1 SOS deserves a shot more than a 9-3 conference champion with an SOS in the 60s. There's a reason why we sent our 6th best team a few years ago (Vanderbilt) to play the ACC runner up (Boston College) and Vandy won. Or Big 10 runner up Michigan State gets clobbered 49-7 to 3rd place in the SEC West Alabama. All conferences are not created equal.

Depends. Do you think the 2nd best team of basketball players we could put together would best the 1st best team of players from Japan? I don't care about the logistics of how the teams get there, I want to see the 2 best teams. And to me, a 9-3 Big East conference champion with a weaker schedule, would almost certainly be inferior to a 1 loss team in the SEC (substitute current SEC for whichever conference was on top in the past or will be in the future)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03 

 

Actually, wouldn't the team with the better record head-to-head prove to be a better team? If you can beat a team across the country better than I can, but I can beat you more than you can beat me, I'd argue that I'm better than you. 

 

 

No.  Cleveland is 50-59, but 2-1 against Texas.  They are not better than Texas.  If LSU beats Alabama in week 1, then loses every other game while Alabama wins every other game, is LSU better?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03 

 

This assumes all conferences are created equal. You didn't visit my assertion that the #2 team in the SEC with a #1 SOS deserves a shot more than a 9-3 conference champion with an SOS in the 60s. There's a reason why we sent our 6th best team a few years ago (Vanderbilt) to play the ACC runner up (Boston College) and Vandy won. Or Big 10 runner up Michigan State gets clobbered 49-7 to 3rd place in the SEC West Alabama. All conferences are not created equal.

 

I agree that they are not equal.  I disagree that the #2 team in the SEC "deserves" a chance to show that they are better than the #1 team in the SEC.  They had an entire season to do so and failed.  If Alabama goes 12-0, and LSU goes 11-1, having lost only to Alabama, the best team in the country, hwo can LSU possibly have a shot at #1?  They play in the championship game and beat Alabama?  At that point they're both 13-1 or 14-1 and beat each other once.  

But to bring it back to baseball, doesn't the uneven divisions make the WC less valid?  That's where you're comparing teams with vastly different schedules.  Why does a AL Central team get the wild card with 88 wins instead of a team in the AL east with 87?  You eliminate this problem by only admitting the top of each division/conference.  They've already proven themselves better than anyone else in division.  That leaves you with a bunch of teams that were better than their peers, and they play it out to see who among them is better.  In my view, that's the whole point.  First you establish yourself as the best of 4 or 5 of 12 or whatever, and if you succeed you get to play against another team that did the same.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03 

 

Depends. Do you think the 2nd best team of basketball players we could put together would best the 1st best team of players from Japan? I don't care about the logistics of how the teams get there, I want to see the 2 best teams. And to me, a 9-3 Big East conference champion with a weaker schedule, would almost certainly be inferior to a 1 loss team in the SEC (substitute current SEC for whichever conference was on top in the past or will be in the future)

 

 

Sure.  This is just a disagreement about the purpose of the playoffs.  You want to see the top teams compete.  I look at as explained above, which is slightly different.  I would guess that most agree with you.  I respectfully disagree. 

I mean, for me it what it boils down to is, if you're #2 in your division you're not #1 in the league, right?  

In both of these cases, I would certainly agree with you. But teams with losing records aren't going to be in contention for post season accolades. But if Cleveland is 2-1 against Texas, has a record of 88-87 and Texas has a record of 89-86, Texas goes. There have been plenty of examples similar to that in history.

I agree it's just a difference of opinion on what the postseason is for. It's a fun debate. Unfortunately, I feel like pro sports get it right a lot more than college football does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03 

 

In both of these cases, I would certainly agree with you. But teams with losing records aren't going to be in contention for post season accolades. But if Cleveland is 2-1 against Texas, has a record of 88-87 and Texas has a record of 89-86, Texas goes. There have been plenty of examples similar to that in history.

 

I can't think of any objective system that could account for that.  Maybe using head-to-head as a tiebreaker, but you either rank them by overall wins and losses or by something else.  What do you suggest?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

 

I can't think of any objective system that could account for that.  Maybe using head-to-head as a tiebreaker, but you either rank them by overall wins and losses or by something else.  What do you suggest?

I suggest the wild card

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

 

But to bring it back to baseball, doesn't the uneven divisions make the WC less valid?  That's where you're comparing teams with vastly different schedules.  Why does a AL Central team get the wild card with 88 wins instead of a team in the AL east with 87?  You eliminate this problem by only admitting the top of each division/conference.  They've already proven themselves better than anyone else in division.  That leaves you with a bunch of teams that were better than their peers, and they play it out to see who among them is better.  In my view, that's the whole point.  First you establish yourself as the best of 4 or 5 of 12 or whatever, and if you succeed you get to play against another team that did the same.

Your point is perfectly valid.  However, the divisions are arbitrarily decided upon.  Not totally arbitralily, obviously, but there is no rhyme or reason as to why there needs to be three in each league, right?  If Bud Selig and the owners decided to switch to 5 divisions in each league and, consequently, just have those 10 division winners in the playoffs, that would satisfy your playoff views, right?  Don't you think it's a safer bet that the 10 playoff teams made up of 3 division winners and 2 wild cards provides "better" overall teams than the 5 division winners?

Of course, I just realized I backed myself into a corner here, because if you extrapolated my argument, then it stands to reason that I should be advocating no divisions and just 5 wild cards on each side.  I'm not sure if I want to go that far yet - that is too close to being like basketball or hockey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

No.  Cleveland is 50-59, but 2-1 against Texas.  They are not better than Texas.  If LSU beats Alabama in week 1, then loses every other game while Alabama wins every other game, is LSU better? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03 

In both of these cases, I would certainly agree with you. But teams with losing records aren't going to be in contention for post season accolades. But if Cleveland is 2-1 against Texas, has a record of 88-87 and Texas has a record of 89-86, Texas goes. There have been plenty of examples similar to that in history.

I don't think head-to-head arguments don't make much sense in baseball in such a small sample size.  That's why they have so many games in a season, and why the playoff series' must be 7 games long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

 Don't you think it's a safer bet that the 10 playoff teams made up of 3 division winners and 2 wild cards provides "better" overall teams than the 5 division winners?

 

 

yeah, that would probably be better.  if the goal is to have the most talented teams in the playoffs.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

Of course, I just realized I backed myself into a corner here, because if you extrapolated my argument, then it stands to reason that I should be advocating no divisions and just 5 wild cards on each side.  I'm not sure if I want to go that far yet - that is too close to being like basketball or hockey.

Why five on each side?  Why not one 30 team league and the top 8 make have a playoff?  

I'm not totally happy with my solution either.  But I've only been czar for a couple hours.  I really wouldn't do anything drastic.  I dont think the wild cards "deserve" to be there because they've proven that they are #2 at best.  I probably wouldn't shake things up as much as I originally stated.

I would say that the World Series is meant to have the best team from each league playing.  The best team in the AL vs the best team in the NL.  Aren't the earlier rounds just smaller versions of the same thing?  Even numbers make that easier.  So leaves 2 or 4.  Two 7-8 team divisions is pretty big.  4, 4 team divisions requires expansion, which I dont think is a good idea for other reasons.  That's why I went with two divisions.  But i'm not happy with that either.

Maybe expansion to 4, 4 team divisions is the way to go.  Like the NFL without the wild cards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03 

 

I suggest the wild card

Head to head records have nothing to do with that.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

 

Head to head records have nothing to do with that.  

But it gives each team the opportunity to prove it on the field. Instead of favoring one team simply because they had a few extra games against some weak teams on the west coast. (Not saying that's always the case, just one possibility -  you could just have easily substituted "the west coast" for "the Mets").

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

 

Why five on each side?  Why not one 30 team league and the top 8 make have a playoff?  

 

Aha!  But then we would have to consolidate the rules.  I used to be a "purist" NL guy, but I have kind of faded into a, AL DH guy.

I actually think this is a big problem already.

Anyways, not really on the topic of NL wild card teams, so I will digress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03 

 

But it gives each team the opportunity to prove it on the field. Instead of favoring one team simply because they had a few extra games against some weak teams on the west coast. (Not saying that's always the case, just one possibility -  you could just have easily substituted "the west coast" for "the Mets").

But that doesn't happen within a division.  They play the same teams or something very very very close to it.  You don't come in 2nd in the division because the 1st place team had an easier schedule.  That might be the case in other sports, but not baseball.  

The uneven schedule means that records between divisions are not apples to apples--and that's what the WC is based on.  So your point about uneven schedules, in my opinion, is an argument against the WC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03 

But it gives each team the opportunity to prove it on the field. Instead of favoring one team simply because they had a few extra games against some weak teams on the west coast. (Not saying that's always the case, just one possibility -  you could just have easily substituted "the west coast" for "the Mets").

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123 

But that doesn't happen within a division.  They play the same teams or something very very very close to it.  You don't come in 2nd in the division because the 1st place team had an easier schedule.  That might be the case in other sports, but not baseball.  

 

The uneven schedule means that records between divisions are not apples to apples--and that's what the WC is based on.  So your point about uneven schedules, in my opinion, is an argument against the WC.

I will ignore Bama's extremely rude comment about weak teams on the west coast  and simply say this:  I think you are both right.

Bama is right because:  Their schedules are all very similar, but they aren't EXACTLY the same for 2 reasons.  One, the aforementioned "rivalry" games.  If the Angels get 6 games against the 59-51 Dodgers and win 1, but the Rangers get 6 games against the 36-74 Astros and lose 4, and the Rangers win the division by 2 games, certainly you could make the argument that is was unfair scheduling.  The other reason is slight variation of the same thing ... when your divisions' interleague play matches up with the NL Central (6 teams) or the AL West (4 teams) then there will be lopsided schedules.  You might get to play the Astros, while your interleague rival gets the Reds, etc.

Dsc is right because:  That scenario is pretty specific and everything has to fall right to make that argument, and I don't believe that it happens very often.  More often than not, over the course of 162 games, it's pretty clear that the team who wins more is better.  (Within the division)